Chennai Court February 1935 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Annamalai Chetty Vs. Raja Srimathu Muthu Vijaya Raghunatha Doraisingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad718; 160Ind.Cas.680
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question is whether the claim of the plaintiff, the Zamindar of Sivaganga, to the cess known as kulavettu is well founded. The lands in Question were manibam inams, enfranchised in favour of the defendant's ancestor. The Government abolished the manibam services and issued an inam title deed, imposing a quit rent. It is recited in the deed that the quit rent is payable to the Government in addition to the jodi to which the zamindar is entitled. The relevant portion runs thus:This inam being held for ambalam (headman) service, now otherwise provided for, shall now be deemed free of such service, but shall henceforth be subject to the payment of an annual quit rent of Rs. 8-2-0, exclusive of Rs. 7-2-3 already payable as jodi to the proprietor, which quit rent is hereby imposed upon the inam in commutation both of the said service and of the reversionary interest possessed by the Government in the inam. The inam is now confirmed to you.2. The first contenti...
(Poomulli Manakkal Mooppil Stanom) Narayanan Nambudripad and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad693
Madhavan Nair, J.1. In this second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant the question raised relates to the value of improvements awarded by the lower Court. The property redeemed had a house on it built by the tenant, and trees of various kinds also. For the house which was a residential one a sum of Rupees 6,502-9-8 was awarded as value for improvements. It is not disputed, before me that, in is an improvement, but what is contended for by Mr. Sastri is that, in arriving at this sum, a wrong principle was applied by the lower Court. The sum was arrived at shortly stated, by estimating the value of the materials used in building the house. The commissioner inspected the house and produced his valuation. Mr. Sastri says that the principle to be applied is to find out what the house and the land will fetch, if the property is sold in auction, and then give for the house what is found as the sum remaining after deducting from the total amount the value of the land. This principle of valuatio...
Poomulli Manakkal Narayanan Nambudiripad and anr. Vs. Pottekkat Kazhun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1935
Reported in: 158Ind.Cas.40
Madhavan Nair, J.1. In this second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant the question raised relates to the value of improvements awarded by the lower Court. The property redeemed had a horse on it built by the tenant and trees of various kinds also. For the house which was a residential one a sum of Rs. 6,502-9-8 was awarded as value for improvements. It is not disputed before me that it is an improvement, but what is contended for, by Mr. Sastri is that, in arriving at this sum, a wrong principle was applied by the lower Court. The sum was arrived at, shortly stated, by estimating the value of the materials used in building the house. The Commissioner inspected the house and produced his valuation. Mr. Sastri says that the principle to be applied is to find out what the house and the land will fetch if the property is sold in auction and then give for the house what is found as the sum remaining after deducting from the total amount the value of the land. It appears to me that this princ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›